Re: FYI: default %printer/%destructor

[Hans Aberg]

On 21 Nov 2006, at 19:48, Joel E. Denny wrote:

> I don't find the cleanup to be that tough especially now that we have
> per-type %destructor.  With the union, I find it convenient that  
> some of
> my semantic types can be primitives, and I don't have to define a  
> common
> base class for all semantic types.

It sounds as though it is fine with you. :-)

> It's fine if you want to do it your way.

Thank you.

> My point is simply that
> %destructor is useful for some grammars using the current C++  
> skeletons,
> and thus %destructor is not a C only feature.

C++ does not have a way to force one to use its OO features.

  Hans Aberg